Tom Neal

11 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I mean, if you can't do it.....

LN tactics?

I don't see you supplying any DIFFERENT info...

Is it too difficult to answer my questions? Of course, if you can't do it...

8 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Tom, there are a lot of people reading this who may not have seen the quote I requested before. Is it really that difficult to supply this quote?

And I've sure there are even MORE who would like to see a statement that it wasn't horizontal. That would include me.

Yes, it IS difficult. I don't have things organized to the degree that I can just go right to it. It could be in numerous places. Why should I let you sidetrack me to go find it - again - while you continue to ignore MY questions, yet expect me to answer yours?

4 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Show me where Perry states this, Tom.

You have got to be kidding. I've quoted him before to you, and you don't respond. You want ME to look it up and paste a quote again? I've quoted him before to you, and you don't respond. Why don't you "show me" where he says something different. What are you saying the angle was; 45 degrees?

To quote your response to Speer; "You didn't answer my question." How many degrees in your "few"? Tell me a feasible trajectory angle from a shooter to your EOP entrance that only requires a "few" degrees downward deflection of his skull to hit C3/C4...

2 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

What proof is there that the projectile exiting JFK's throat was travelling on a horizontal plane?

Not what I said. I said horizontal from the trachea to the throat wound. Malcolm Perry was QUITE clear on that. Of course it would continue along the same line after exiting the body...

When did the "EOP entrance wound" become an established fact like the hole in the back of the head, the back wound, and the throat wound? You guys are sure talking like it's a fact...

On 12/8/2016 at 8:35 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

If you lay a straight edge on this drawing, with one end touching the base of the skull and the other end passing between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, you will find the edge passes through cervical vertebrae C3 and C4. The vicinity of C3/C4 is precisely where the Bethesda x-ray technician Jerrol Custer told the HSCA he recalled seeing "many fragments" on the x-rays of JFK's neck he recalled seeing.

Skull bone is tough. A bullet could easily strike a tangential blow along the bottom of the skull, be deflected a few degrees and go on to hit the vertebrae.

Bob,

A "few" degrees? How many degrees are you proposing? 2 or 3? 25? 40? Use your straight edge and tell us what the angle from the back of the skull to the junction of C3/C4 happens to be. Now supply your proposed trajectory angle of depression. Subtract the angles. You won't get a "few" degrees.

You guys who believe in a head entrance, throat exit, never provide any "details" such as the trajectory angle of depression from the shooter to the skull, or where the bullet "grazed" the skull. Even ignoring all of these issues you can't get the bullet, fragmented bullet, plastic tip, bone or anything else from even 45-degrees downward (which is too shallow an angle) to horizontal as stated by Perry regarding the trajectory from trachea to exit wound.

On 12/7/2016 at 4:32 PM, Pat Speer said:

x-ray of three fragments

Note: these fragments were purportedly used in the reconstruction of Kennedy's skull, and buried with him.

Which one of these fragments are you claiming is the back of his skull as reported by Kinney and Hill? The size and shape of these fragments fit neither description by these two who certainly had a good look at them, and in Kinney's case, actually handled it. Obviously the bone fragment Kinney had is the same fragment Hill reported.

All of the reports of the hole in the back of the head indicate it was round. The largest fragment in Pat Speer's photo is rectangular, and the others are far too small.

On 12/7/2016 at 2:05 PM, Pat Speer said:

At the time, neither Specter nor Perry knew that the transverse process of the spine had in fact been damaged. They thought that Perry's testimony ruled out that a bullet had ascended (or descended) within the neck. But we now know better.

More evidence that your 45-degree trajectory is wrong. What caused the bullet to deflect downward towards vertical, and then upward to the horizontal so it could cut the trachea AND then exit at the spot you indicate?

You didn't answer any of my questions... To quote you, "You are incorrect" regarding the trajectory angle.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Kinney claimed he found a large bone fragment on the plane ride back from Dallas. He handed this over to his superiors. A large bone fragment was brought to the autopsy by the Secret Service after Kinney's arrival in Washington. If you want to believe they pulled a switcheroo, go ahead.

Kinney is clear that he turned it over to Berkely, not the SS, and whatever happened to it is unknown. Kinneys and Hills size and shape descriptions of the occipetal bone do not match the fragments depicted in the photos and x-rays.

Whatever the source of the bones brought to the autopsy, I don't believe any one of them is the piece described by Hill and found by Kinney "right where [Hill] said it was."

Can you produce a photo or x-ray of the bones brought to the autopsy? Are all of those bones available today of have some of them vanished? Kinda indicates "they" didn't want them examined...

Just now, Pat Speer said:

Perry and Clark initially wondered if the same bullet didn't cause both the throat wound and head wound. In other words, Perry thought the throat wound consistent with a bullet's heading up the neck. He was later asked about this by Specter. Here was his response: "Since I observed only two wounds in my cursory examination, it would have necessitated the missile striking probably a bony structure and being deviated in its course in order to account for these two wounds...It required striking the spine."

At the time, neither Specter nor Perry knew that the transverse process of the spine had in fact been damaged. They thought that Perry's testimony ruled out that a bullet had ascended (or descended) within the neck. But we now know better.

Your 45 degree traj doesn't impact the spine where it could deflect to cause the horizontal traj from trachea to throat wound. The damage to the spine is minimal at most and disputed by many. Which cervical vertebra are you saying deflected the bullet as at least two locations have been stated, as well as bullet fragments present on x-rays.

State the entire traj. EOP entrance; to WHICH cervical vertebra?; to where? the trachea?

Just now, Pat Speer said:

You're incorrect. The largest of the three bone fragments x-rayed on the night of the shooting (the Kinney fragment)

What evidence is there that the largest bone fragment x-rayed was the Kinney fragment?

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect the bullet heading down the neck was not a high-velocity bullet. The angle to the throat was not 70 degrees, but 45 degrees.

The 45 degree angle would produce a trajectory to the throat wound, not to the tracheal wound. Also, the tracheal wound to the throat wound was horizontal as stated by Perry et al. Your 45 degree trajectory does not allow for this, nor does it explain what caused the bullet trajectory to become horizontal PRIOR to the tracheal wound site.

Question for David Lifton

Hi David,

Could I get your opinion on the theory that a high speed rifle bullet "glanced" off the lower rear of JFK's skull and its trajectory was deflected downward at least 45 degrees from its initial trajectory angle?

Certainly this could happen if the skull had the strength of  steel, but according to forensic data a high speed bullet would lose 400 fps in velocity when perforating the occipital area of the skull. I have been unable to find any data stating the force required to accomplish this, but this 400 fps velocity reduction indicates that a "glancing" impact could not alter the initial velocity vector by the necessary 45 degrees. Approximately half of the velocity along the initial velocity vector (approx 1000 fps) would have to be eliminated. Given a 400 fps reduction for a perforation a "glancing" impact could not produce a 1,000 fps reduction. All of this is of course a *highly* simplified explanation.

Thanks for any thoughts!

Tom

According to Sam Kinney he found what he described as 'the back of his head' in the limo during the C-130 flight back to DC. It was on the back seat as described by Clint Hill. Kinney say he turned this bone over to his 'very good friend' Adm. Burkley. Kinney has no idea what happened to the bone after that.

The bones brought to the autopsy were too small to have been this occipital bone as described by Hill and Kinney.

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I came to believe a bullet entering near the EOP descended within the neck, and exited the throat while traveling at a greatly reduced velocity.

Pat,

Presumably, you still believe this...if so, please respond to the following:

• Is EOP skull bone strong enough to deflect a highspeed bullet from a 20 or so degree angle to the approx 70 degrees required to reach the trachea at the correct location?
• According to Perry et al the trajectory from throat wound to tracheal wound was horizontal. What caused the almost vertical trajectory to become horizontal?
• The "bullet" tore 1/4 to 1/3 of the circumference of the tough tracheal cartilage. At what point along its path did the bullet slow to "a greatly reduced velocity?"
• According to all FBI memos and Fraziers testimony, no metal was present on the shirt slits. How did the bullet exit without leaving "wipe" behind?
• The only cloth missing from the tie is the site where a test piece of cloth was removed. According to Fraziers testimony (which is contrary to FBI memos which in turn contradict each other) there was no metal on the necktie knot. According to Tom Purvis, the FBI lab notes state that no metal was present on the tie or the shirt slits. How did the bullet exit without damaging the necktie or depositing metal?

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

I think Obama's hoping Trump goes easy on "legacy" issues like Obamacare, the climate change accords, the Iran nuke deal, the opening to Cuba.

Keep the Trumpster's appetite for spite to a minimum, I reckon Obama's thinking goes.

Those are excellent points. Trump IS childish enough that it would matter to him. I have to start remembering that...

42 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Please tell me if I'm wrong. So the present status is that they have met the requirements and are currently counting votes in Wisconsin, but there's no estimate how long that will take? And they are counting in Pennsylvania, but with the legal hurdles and increased cost burdens, it would seem that there is little hope of coming in with an action that would effect the vote by the electors? (which I figure to be on Dec. 19th.)

Kirk,

The last I read is that Wisconsin is being cooperative and hopes to meet the deadline of Dec 13th. I don't know why that date was chosen as I agree with you that the electors do their thing on Dec 19th. Enough of them have the right to vote against the electoral outcome justifying their actions by the drastic difference in the popular vote, but I can't imagine that happening.

As for Penn, according to Dr. Stein, they are continuing to count in many districts and she is hoping to get Trump's lead down to 0.5%. This would trigger an automatic recount by state law. Just like Florida, only this time the Supreme Court would tie if they were brought in and the recount could continue.

I can't imagine whatever the outcome of these counts that Hillary will end up with all 3 states, but I'm HOPING some major illegal activity will be discovered. This should, but probably wouldn't inspire legislature to give less power to those who actually count the votes as they CLEARLY can not be trusted. Dems just don't have the cojones to demand something be done, and the MSM would ignore them just as it is ignoring the recount.

9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Tom, I think Obama is reluctant to antagonize the world's biggest little dictator over what may end up a futile exercise.

I like what the current administration is doing in North Dakota.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/dakota-access-pipeline/

Thanks Obama!

Hi Cliff,

That's one of the many reasons why I don't like to knock Obama. Despite a recent comment on this site, I believe Obama has done a fine job despite Republican opposition on a scale that even for them is outrageous. Something he never gets credit it for is getting elected in the first place and then getting a second term. That's an inspiration for liberal minorities who go out and vote. We should be thinking him for keeping the likes of McCain and Romney out of the oval office for 8 years! Imagine the damage they would have done.

I doubt that enough will come out to change anything, but the public MAY get the idea that the voting system in the USA is subject to the whims of governors, campaign people, etc. that have FAR too much discretion in the misplacing and tossing out of votes. If not for the recount threat, we would NOT have heard anything about Pennsylvania "forgetting" to count 23,000 votes for Clinton. If Democratic Senators and Congressmen would grow a pair, this would be the time to at least propose something be done about it. I'm hoping that at least ONE major issue will come to light, although I don't expect it will...

The fact that 7 DEMOCRATS on the Senate Intelligence Committee have requested BO to release some info on Russian hacking seems to indicate there IS some evidence there. OTOH, if it were 7 Republicans I'd say they know there's nothing to it, and are trying to expose that fact to fight the recount that is essentially being ignored or ridiculed by the MSM.

Why do you think Obama is reluctant to antagonize the Orange Fuhrer? What could Trump do in retaliation?

7 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Of course the Joannides material is something rather special since it involves a CIA officer and suggests some pretty obvious shenanigans by the CIA in regard to the HSCA - regardless of what might be indicated about Oswald.  My guess is those documents do  contain some mention of Oswald.  There has to be something in there that continues to convince judges it has national security implications and I can't fathom what it would be if that's not it.

But more specifically, were not the Joannides documents identified separately under FOIA? If so and if they were never part of the JFK collection at NARA then that makes a big difference and it remains a matter of court decisions.  Someone else may have a much more accurate response on that.   

On a side note I suspect much of our discussion is missing the importance of what must be in the Joinnides documents and what the CIA fight over them implies. Jeff clearly has a real tiger by the tail there but it keeps fading into the background for some reason. 

Hi there, Larry. Thanks for the response, and I hope all is well with you and yours.

IMO, the blatantly illegal act of placing GJ as the CIA rep to the HSCA indicates his knowledge of the DRE and other Cuban groups was an absolute necessity. If not, couldn't others who actually met the stated criteria for this position have functioned as adequate roadblocks? My speculation is that GJ was put there because he had a personal interest in protecting his own actions as much as protecting CIA.

I believe that an LHO/CIA connection must be indicated as there doesn't seem to be any reason for CIA's flat out refusal to follow court orders re Morley's FOIA. It appears that CIA still exerts far too much power, and/or is being protected by someone who has the ability to control the courts. In reality of course, it doesn't work this way, but shouldn't CIA's refusal to follow a court order be grounds to take it to the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President? I'm not aware that it was taken to any of them and was rejected...

It *must* be big, and that IMO strongly implies CIA complicity in the assassination.

Do you have any idea why this didn't become a part of CIA's 2017 documents once it became known? If it was unknown, doesn't that mean CIA *illegally* withheld it from the ARRB? IF it is not part of the 2017 release then apparently the court system will simply ignore it without repercussions.

Is the fact that CIA willfully obstructed a Congressional investigation enough of a reason to deem it a National Security issue? i.e. 'It would be bad for the country if the public lost confidence in the intelligence community.' Certainly we have Supreme Court judges who would go along with this to protect past, present and  future illegal gov't activities...

Are you aware of any informed discussion as to how Trump will react to releasing the 2017 stuff?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

16 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

 

Hey Larry I wasn't trying to stir anything up. We know there's going to be some really good stuff in this batch though I'm kind of anxious to see if they do petition the new President to withhold some more things. My fingers crossed.

Isn't it pretty much a given that CIA will petition to withhold or outright refuse to release the 2017 stuff? I mean they sent George Joannides to the HSCA "illegally" and they still won't release his files. Aren't Joannides records included in the 2017 scheduled release?

47 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/no-pennsylvania-recount-effort-isnt-yes-mainstream-media-lying/359/

Great stuff, Douglas. Keep it coming. I sure hope Jill Stein can get the lead down below 0.5% and trigger that automatic recount!

As much as I hate to throw rocks at Obama, why is he not sounding a hue and cry over this?

7 US Senators urge Obama to release details of Russian hacking in presidential elections. All 7 are on the Senate Intelligence Committee. They should know if something's up...

http://www.protectourelections.org/2016/12/01/7-senate-democrats-urge-obama-to-declassify-information-about-russia-meddling-in-us-election/

5 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

This is why Trump is so adamant about ending the recounts.

http://www.palmerreport.com/news/hillary-clinton-catches-20000-votes-pennsylvania-recount-begins/305/

 

Douglas,

Great job keeping us informed.

I just discovered that a non-profit election watch group which participated in the Wisconsin suit has sued the state of Florida to allow a recount. Our current governor has carried on the Jeb Bush tradition of throwing out opposing votes. Considering how many votes have voluntarily upped the Clinton total, maybe Florida will be forced to relent. After handing the presidency to "W" in a rigged election, more than any other state, Florida needs to be caught cheating.

Non-profit group sues Florida for recount!

There is also a link to a contribution site. I just donated.

Any Floridian's or anyone wanting to help; Florida's 29 Electoral votes would look MUCH better in Hillary's total...

Any funds NOT needed in the Florida suit will go to recounts in other states, and the contribution is tax deductible.

On 11/27/2016 at 7:06 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

What's really sad, Tom, is that even folks on the left are buying into the lies against Clinton. Whatever it takes to support one's convictions or promote one's agenda, I guess.

Oh, so very true. Trump's elected, and yet the Hillary BS still goes on... What does that imply?

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Man, this crosscheck thing is really suspicious.  It reminds me a lot of what the GOP did in Florida in 2000 to erase names from registration lists.

Florida 2000: A minimum of 3,000 voters were ILLEGALLY removed by GOP workers. Only two sources are updated and legally usable for voter removal. When asked why they didn't use the legal sources, they stated: "We weren't finding enough names there." This was known prior to election day and was published in multiple newspapers. If 1 out of 5 voters were legal, and this was corrected, Gore would have been in the WH. What did 'little brother' do?

Considering what the head of the NSA stated, a COMPLETE investigation should be mandatory including a state by state recount. Is an investigation going on right now behind closed doors? If so, why isn't it happening in the light of day?

Considerably more than 1/2 the votes were for Hillary. Isn't it likely that the public is responding to the fact that this is the same archaic process that put W in the WH? Trump and W are the two most recent Republicans presidents and NEITHER got a majority of votes.

The most talked about facet of this recount is whether or not the Clintons contributed $ when it should be on the fact that all US intelligence agencies apparently agree that there was interference in this election. They should contribute - I certainly did! Did anyone else?